Biopolymer thickened fire retardant compositions

ABSTRACT

Fire retardant compositions and methods of making and using the same are provided. The fire retardant compositions are comprised of at least one fire retardant component, including at least one ammonium polyphosphate and at least one biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter of less than about 100 microns. In a specific embodiment, the fire retardant composition is comprised of a xanthan biopolymer.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] Priority under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §119(e) is claimed toU.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/253,387, filed Nov. 28, 2000,which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

[0002] Not applicable.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0003] The present invention relates to biopolymer-thickened fireretardant compositions. More specifically, the invention is directed toammonium polyphosphate concentrates and other solutions containing atleast one biopolymer for improved Theological advantages.

BACKGROUND

[0004] Aerial application of fire-retardant compositions to combat thespread of wildland fires is common. The composition of fire retardantsconcentrates designed for managing and controlling wildland fires are oftwo generally types, those which, when mixed or diluted with water toend-use concentration, result in a gum thickened solution, and thosewhich do not contain a gum thickener and, consequently, result inwater-like solutions, which are not Theologically modified. Thesewater-like retardant solutions exhibit inferior drop characteristics.The former may be supplied as dry powders, as suspensions, or slurries,which are generally referred to as fluids. Those concentrates thatresult in water-like solutions when diluted with water may containsuspended components, as well, but are generally referred to as liquidconcentrates. Fire retardant concentrates that are supplied as fluids orliquids are preferred by some because they can be simply and easilydiluted to end-use strength with little mixing hardware and manpower.

[0005] Ammonium polyphosphate liquids have been used as aerially appliedfire-retardants. These liquids have certain advantages in comparison toother fire-suppressing compositions since they can be transported andstored prior to use in the liquid form rather than being mixed from dryingredients. However, concentrated liquid fire retardants and solutionsprepared therefrom are extremely corrosive to aluminum and brass andmildly corrosive to other materials of construction used in handling,storage and application equipment. As used herein, all metals includealloys thereof. Accordingly, aluminum includes aluminum 2024T3, 6061 and7074, steel includes 1010 and 4130 steel, and brass includes yellow andnaval brass. Since wildland fire retardants are most frequentlytransported to the fire and applied aerially, it is imperative thatcorrosive damage to the materials of construction of fixed-wing aircraftand helicopters be minimized.

[0006] Accordingly, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”)Forest Service has established, in “Specification 5100-304b (January2000) Superseding Specification 5100-00304a (February 1986),” entitled“Specification for Long Term Retardant, Wildland Fire, Aircraft orGround Application” (hereinafter, “Forest Service Specifications”),hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, maximum allowablecorrosion rates for 2024T3 aluminum, 4130 steel, yellow brass andAz-31-B magnesium. For example, the corrosivity of forest fireretardants, in concentrate, to aluminum, steel, yellow brass andmagnesium must not exceed 5.0 milli-inches (“mils”) per year (“mpy”) asdetermined by the “Uniform Corrosion” test set forth in Section 4.3.5.1of the aforementioned USDA, Forest Service Specifications. The ForestService Specifications identify the maximum amount of corrosionacceptable when both the retardant concentrate and its diluted solutionsare exposed to each metal indicated above at temperatures of 70°Fahrenheit (“F”) and 120° F. in both the totally and partially immersedconfiguration. The maximum allowable corrosivity of aerially appliedfire retardant diluted solutions to aluminum is 2.0 mpy, and the maximumcorrosivity to brass and steel is 5.0 mpy when partially immersed and2.0 when tested in the partially immersed condition. In the partiallyimmersed configurations, one-half of the coupon is within the solutionand one-half is exposed to the vapors in the air space over thesolution. If the product is applied from fixed-tank equippedhelicopters, the corrosivity of the fire retardants to magnesium mustnot exceed 5.0 mpy.

[0007] In an effort to address the corrosivity problems encountered withthe use of fertilizer grade ammonium polyphosphates, sodium ferrocyanidewas incorporated into the corrosive compositions. Sodium ferrocyanidehas proven to be an effective corrosion inhibitor in fire retardantcompositions containing ammonium polyphosphate fertilizer solutions.However, while sodium ferrocyanide is effective as a corrosioninhibitor, several disadvantages of its use make its incorporation inwildland fire retardant compositions undesirable. Specifically, theenvironmental and toxicological safety of ferro(i)cyanides is, at best,questionable. When exposed to acidic conditions and/or ultravioletradiation from natural sunlight, the ferro(i)cyanide radical readilydegrades releasing free iron and cyanide and/or hydrogen cyanide, whichare toxic to humans, animals and aquatic life. Further, free ironemanating either from decomposition of a portion of the ferro(i)cyanideradical, or introduced from other components or impurities within thecomposition, will subsequently react with remaining non-decomposedferro(i)cyanide to form ferricyanide (“Tumbull's Blue”) or ferricferrocyanide (“Prussian Blue”), which emit a persistent blue-black orindigo-blue coloration, staining all that they contact. Consequently,neither ferricyanide nor ferrocyanide can be used in fire-retardantsthat are expected to fade and become non-visible over time, for example,in fugitive retardant compositions.

[0008] The magnitude of the above concerns is increased since wildlandfire retardants are generally applied aerially in a less than completelycontrolled manner. Due to the presence of variables such as vegetativecover, smoke, or wind drift that impact the trajectory of thefree-falling solution, aerially applied wildland fire retardantsolutions may land on or near people, animals and in bodies of water, oron soil where it could enter the water supply.

[0009] In addition, the Theological properties of wildland fireretardant solutions during periods of extreme and relaxed shear, and itselasticity are recognized as important Theological characteristics. TheTheological properties of forest and brush land fire retardant solutionsare important because they significantly affect the performance of theretardant during and following aerial discharge and subsequentdistribution within the fuel ladder. The degree of dispersion, integrityof the retardant cloud, magnitude of wind-induced drift, as well as thecontinuity of coverage, retention on and penetration of the fuel complexare among those performance-related characteristics impacted. Fireretardant solutions, which exhibit increased viscosity and elasticproperties are more desired because they are less affected by theextreme forces encountered in aerial application, e.g. wind effects,gravity, and shear force due to forward momentum.

[0010] Historically, wildland fire retardant solutions, as prepared forapplication, have been of three general Theological types: (1)unthickened liquid fertilizer solutions with little effective viscosityand elasticity; (2) clay thickened aqueous ammonium sulfate solutionswith high apparent viscosity, but little effective =viscosity and noelasticity; and (3) high viscosity, pseudoplastic and elastic, gumthickened ammonium phosphate and/or sulfate solutions, which maintain anincreased viscosity level and elastic character even when subjected togreat amounts of shear.

[0011] Guar gums, natural polysaccharides that are extracted from theguar bean, have been used in aerially applied fire retardants to enhancethe Theological properties of the retardant solutions. Guar gumthickeners function in an acceptable manner when the ammoniumpolyphosphate based fire retardant composition is diluted relativelysoon after preparation. The rate of degradation of the guar gumthickener varies with the composition of the fertilizer grade ammoniumpolyphosphate, and can be as short as a few hours. However, when theconcentrated retardant is stored for more than about one week, the rateof viscosity decreases to an unacceptable level. For example,experiments have shown that guar gum thickened ammonium polyphosphatefire retardant concentrates stored for one month, or more, prior todilution shows little tendency to increase in viscosity for severalhours and does not reach its expected viscosity level for perhaps a weekor more. Since wildland fires occur on a non-predictable basis and arapid response is required to treat them, this type of behavior isundesirable.

[0012] Conventional xanthan biopolymers thickeners having weight averageparticle diameters in excess of about 100 microns have also been used toalter the rheological characteristics of aerially applied fireretardants. Conventional commercially available xanthan biopolymersinclude, but are not limited to Kelzan® and Kelzan S® from CP Kelco,Wilmington, Del., and Xanthan AC® from Jungbunzlauer International AG,Basel, Switzerland. However, like guar gums, conventional xanthanbiopolymer thickeners perform unacceptably when they are stored inliquid ammonium polyphosphate compositions. Even when prepared freshly,ammonium polyphosphate fire retardant concentrates containing theseconventional xanthan biopolymers have a decreased ability to increasethe viscosity of the solution in a timely manner upon subsequentdilution with water. As such, the use of conventional xanthan biopolymerthickeners to improve the rheological characteristics of ammoniumpolyphosphate type fire retardant compositions for aerial application isless desired.

[0013] Accordingly, there is a need to provide safe and acceptablewildland fire retardants for the suppression or management of wildlandfires that are not corrosive to the equipment associated with thetransportation, handling and application of the retardant, havefavorable rheological and aerial application characteristics and areenvironmentally and toxicologically friendly, thereby avoiding the abovedisadvantages.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0014] In overcoming the above disadvantages, it is an object of theinvention to produce a wildland fire retardant composition that hasfavorable Theological and aerial application characteristics and isenvironmentally and toxicologically friendly.

[0015] The above and other objects are met by the present invention,which provides a fire retardant composition comprising at least one fireretardant comprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate and at leastone biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter of less thanabout 100 microns.

[0016] In a second aspect, the present invention provides a fireretardant composition comprising at least one fire retardant thatincludes at least one ammonium polyphosphate and at least one xanthanbiopolymer.

[0017] In yet a third aspect, the present invention provides a method ofsuppressing wildland fires that includes aerially applying to wildlandvegetation, ahead of wildland fire, a fire suppressing composition thatis comprised of water and the above-described corrosion-inhibitedfire-retardant compositions of the invention.

[0018] In a fourth aspect, the present invention provides a method ofpreparing the above-described fire retardant compositions of theinvention that includes forming an intermediate concentrate compositionthat includes the above-described fire retardant compositions of theinvention and diluting the intermediate concentrate with water to formthe fire retardant composition of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0019] Not applicable.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0020] In accordance with the present invention, it has been discoveredthat a fire-retardant composition can be prepared that has a reducedtendency to corrode various metals, including aluminum, that is superiorto known fire retardants in Theological aerial applicationcharacteristics and both toxicologically and environmentally safe. Thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant of the invention includes at leastone fire retardant composition comprised of at least one ammoniumpolyphosphate and a corrosion inhibiting system comprised of at leastone corrosion inhibiting compound selected from a group of corrosioninhibiting compounds consisting of azoles, insoluble ferricpyrophosphate (mixtures of insoluble ferric pyrophosphate and sodiumcitrate), soluble ferric pyrophosphate, ferrous oxalate, ferric citrate,ferrous sulfate, ferric ammonium citrate, insoluble ferricorthophosphate, soluble ferric orthophosphate, ferric ammonium oxalate,ferric ammonium sulfate, ferric bromide, ferric sodium oxalate, ferricstearate, ferric sulfate, ferrous acetate, ferrous ammonium sulfate,ferrous bromide, ferrous gluconate, ferrous iodide, ferric acetate,ferric fluoroborate, ferric hydroxide, ferrous fumarate, ferrousoxalate, ferrous oxide, ferric lactate, ferric resinate, and anycombination thereof. Generally, the corrosion inhibiting system ispresent in a minor amount effective to substantially reduce thecorrosiveness of the fire retardant composition.

[0021] In one embodiment of the invention, a small amount of at leastone biopolymer is added to the fire retardant compositions of theinvention. When small amounts of biopolymers are added to the fireretardant compositions of the invention, further reduction in aluminumcorrosivity is experienced. As shown in Tables 7a and 7b supra, thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant compositions of the inventioncontaining biopolymers pass the corrosion requirements in bothconcentrate and dilute solutions. Generally, the concentrated fireretardant compositions of the invention comprise in the range of about0.01% to about 5.0% biopolymer, and preferably at least about 0.5%biopolymer. However, as one skilled in the art will appreciate,compositions comprising biopolymer concentrations outside of this rangeare also effective. Further, biopolymers having particle diametersoutside of the above range may be incorporated into the compositions ofthe invention without departing from the spirit and scope of theinvention. For example, fire retardant compositions containingbiopolymers having weight average particle diameters greater than about100 microns in combination with biopolymers having weight averageparticle diameters less than about 100 microns would be obvious to oneskilled in the art.

[0022] In one specific embodiment of the invention, the fire retardantcomposition, in concentrate, comprises about 1.0% biopolymer. In anotherspecific embodiment of the invention, the fire retardant compositioncomprises about 3.0% biopolymer, in concentrate. In yet another specificembodiment of the invention, the fire retardant composition comprisesabout 0.5% biopolymer, in concentrate.

[0023] The biopolymer may be any biopolymer having a weight averageparticle diameter less than about 100 microns. Biopolymers suitable foruse in the present invention include, but are not limited to rhamsan,xanthan and welan biopolymers having weight average particle diametersless than about 100 microns. Conventional xanthan thickeners havingweight average particle diameters in excess of about 100 microns performunacceptably when they are stored for more than a few days in contactwith liquid ammonium polyphosphate compositions. However, the inventorshave found that reducing the particle diameter of biopolymers improvesthe ability of the biopolymers to rapidly increase the viscosity of thefire retardant composition upon subsequent dilution with water andexhibit increased corrosion inhibition, generally.

[0024] For example, a xanthan biopolymer, with a weight average particlediameter in the range of about 100 to about 180 microns performsunacceptably in the fire retardant composition of the present invention,while a chemically identical xanthan gum with an average particlediameter in the range of about 20 to about 70 microns performsacceptably.

[0025] In one embodiment, the corrosion-inhibited fire retardantcompositions of the invention include at least one xanthan biopolymerhaving a weight average particle diameter less than about 100 microns.Unlike prior art fire retardant compositions comprising guar gumthickeners, and conventional xanthan biopolymers having a weight averageparticle diameter greater than about 100 microns, the rate of viscosityof the fire retardant compositions of the invention that are comprisedof xanthan biopolymer show viscosity development that is unaffected bythe length of time that the biopolymer is in contact with the ammoniumpolyphosphate fire retardant solution. Some xanthan biopolymers suitablefor use in the present invention are found in Xanthan Gum-natural biogumfor scientific water control, Fifth Edition, herein incorporated byreference in its entirety.

[0026] The fire retardant compositions of the invention, speciallyadapted for aerial application to wildland fires, are prepared byforming an intermediate concentrate composition comprising theabove-described fire retardant composition containing theabove-described corrosion inhibiting system. The intermediateconcentrate is then diluted with water to form the corrosion-inhibitedfire retardant composition of the invention. Generally, the fireretardant compositions of the invention, comprise in the range of about0.00224% to about 1.12% biopolymer in the final mixed composition (afterdilution) and preferably, at least 0.112% biopolymer in the final mixedcomposition. However, as one skilled in the art will appreciate,compositions comprising biopolymer concentrations outside of this rangeare also effective.

[0027] In one specific embodiment, the fire retardant compositions ofthe invention comprise about 0.112% biopolymer in dilute solution. Inanother specific embodiment, the fire retardant compositions of theinvention comprise 0.224% biopolymer in dilute solution. In yet anotherspecific embodiment, the fire retardant compositions of the inventioncomprise about 0.672% biopolymer in dilute solution.

[0028] In accordance with the present invention, the fire retardant ofthe invention includes a fire retardant comprised of at least oneammonium polyphosphate. Ammonium polyphosphate is also referred to aspolyammonium phosphate and may include ortho-, pyro and polyphosphates,other ammonium phosphates such as metaphosphates, the alkali metalequivalents thereof, as well as a blend of phosphate polymers.

[0029] The ammonium polyphosphate solutions that are used asagricultural fertilizer and wildland (vegetative) fire retardants aremanufactured by neutralizing aqueous solutions of wet-process phosphoricacid, generally containing about 68% to about 74% phosphorus pentoxidewith anhydrous ammonia in such a manner that both high temperature andpressure are experienced. When prepared in this manner, a portion of theimpure orthophosphoric acid polymerizes or condenses, resulting in theformation of pyrophosphate, short chain polyphosphates and, in mostinstances, small amounts of cyclic or metaphosphates. That portion ofthe acid which does not polymerize, of course, remains asorthophosphoric acid. Ammoniation of this mixture of phosphate speciesoccurs within the reactor, as well, resulting in an aqueous solutioncontaining ammonium ortho, pyro, tripoly, tetrapoly and some higherchain and cyclic phosphate species. These condensed phosphates generallyexhibit increased water solubility as compared to orthophosphates and,consequently, more highly concentrated solutions can be prepared whenthey are present. The relative concentrations of the various speciesdepends primarily on the temperature and pressure achieved within thereactor. Commercial solutions generally contain from about 34% to about37% phosphorus pentoxide. Phosphorus pentoxide concentrations aboveabout 37% approach water solubility limits resulting in solutions thatare not stable, from which solids may precipitate during ambienttemperature storage. Solutions of this type are generally referred to aseither 10-34-0 or 11-37-0 liquid concentrates; the numerical designationrefers to the percentage of their plant nutrient composition, i.e.,ammoniacal nitrogen, phosphorus pentoxide and potassium oxide.

[0030] It should be noted that the condensed phosphates that are presentin liquid concentrate solutions are subject to hydrolyses which resultsin de-polymerization. The rate of hydrolytic degradation increases withtime, temperature, and the relative acidity of the solution. Therefore,ammonium polyphosphate concentrates and their solutions may vary inspecies composition as received and as time progresses during theirsubsequent storage.

[0031] These liquid concentrates may additionally contain small amountsof diammonium sulfate and a host of metal and alkali-metal impurities.The quantity and quality of these impurities vary with the compositionof the phosphate ore, the utilized process and the extent ofpurification that is conducted during manufacture of the wet-processphosphoric acid. Since these solutions are manufactured primarily asnutrients, the quality control parameters of greatest interest are thepercentages of their contained nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorus—and theclarity, stability and color of the solution rather than purity per se.

[0032] The corrosion inhibiting system of the invention is comprised ofat least one corrosion inhibiting compound selected from a group ofcorrosion inhibiting compounds consisting of azoles, insoluble ferricpyrophosphate, soluble ferric pyrophosphate, ferrous oxalate, ferriccitrate, ferrous sulfate, ferric ammonium citrate, insoluble ferricorthophosphate, soluble ferric orthophosphate, ferric ammonium oxalate,ferric ammonium sulfate, ferric bromide, ferric sodium oxalate, ferricstearate, ferric sulfate, ferrous acetate, ferrous ammonium sulfate,ferrous bromide, ferrous gluconate, ferrous iodide, ferric acetate,ferric fluoroborate, ferric hydroxide, ferric oleate, ferrous fumarate,ferrous oxalate, ferrous oxide, ferric lactate, ferric resinate and anycombination thereof. In one preferred embodiment, the corrosioninhibiting system is comprised of at least one soluble corrosioninhibiting compound and at least one insoluble corrosion inhibitingcompound. The combination of such soluble and insoluble corrosioninhibiting iron containing compounds appears to provide the optimumcombination of corrosion inhibition.

[0033] A minor amount of the corrosion inhibiting system of theinvention effective to substantially reduce the corrosiveness of thefire retardant composition is included in the corrosion-inhibited fireretardant composition of the invention. A minor effective amount of thecorrosion inhibiting system is that amount that substantially reducesthe corrosivity of the fire retardant. As is understood by one ofordinary skill in the art, what constitutes a substantial reduction incorrosivity is largely dependent on the specific fire retardant used inthe fire retardant composition of the invention, as well as the specificcomposition of the corrosion inhibiting system and can be readilydetermined without undue experimentation.

[0034] In one embodiment, the corrosion inhibiting system of theinvention is present in a minor amount effective in thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant composition, in concentrate, toobtain at least one with a maximum corrosivity to aluminum of 5.0 mpy,yellow brass of 5.0 mpy, and steel of 5.0 mpy, as determined by the“Uniform Corrosion Test” set forth in Section 4.5.6.1.2 of“Specification 5100-304b (January 2000) Superseding Specification5100-304a (February 1986),” entitled “Specification For Long TermRetardant, Wildland Fire, Aircraft or Ground Application,” issued by theUSDA, and herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

[0035] In a specific embodiment, the corrosion inhibiting system of theinvention comprises in the range of about 0.01% to about 10.0% of thetotal corrosion-inhibited fire retardant. In another specificembodiment, the corrosion inhibiting system of the invention comprisesin the range of about 0.3% to about 6.0% of the totalcorrosion-inhibited fire retardant. In yet another specific embodiment,the corrosion inhibiting system of the invention comprises in the rangeof about 0.6% to about 5.0% of the total corrosion-inhibited fireretardant.

[0036] Prior to use, and in one embodiment of the invention, thecorrosion-inhibited compositions of the invention are blended with waterto form dilute solutions containing the amount of phosphorus pentoxiderequired to achieve the maximum amount of vegetation coverage at anapplication rate sufficient to reduce the flammability of the vegetativefuels to the desired level. The water used in the composition of theinvention may be tap water or water from other convenient water sources.Generally, the compositions are diluted one part concentrate to in therange of about three to seven parts water. In a specific embodiment, thecompositions of the invention are diluted one part concentrate to in therange of about four to six parts water. However, it should be noted thatthe compositions of the invention may be diluted outside of the aboveranges, for example where improved retardant penetration is desired.

[0037] In a specific embodiment, the compositions of the invention areblended with water to form dilute solutions containing the amount ofphosphorus pentoxide required to meet USDA, Forest Service Specificationfire-retardant effectiveness requirements. This concentration, which isdetermined via combustion-retarding effectiveness testing described inUSDA, Forest Service Specification 5100-304b, “4.5.2. CombustionRetarding Effectiveness Test,” will generally depend on the percentageof phosphorus pentoxide present in the concentrated composition and theextent of its availability for retarding reactions. Thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant composition of the invention istypically diluted to an amount effective to achieve maximum coverage ofvegetation at an application rate sufficient to reduce the flammablefuels to a desired level. The minimum USDA, Forest ServiceSpecifications, for combustion retarding effectiveness, as specified inSpecification 5100-304b, is generally obtained when thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant concentrate of the invention isdiluted with about 1 to about 8 volumes of water.

[0038] To suppress wildland fires, the corrosion-inhibited fireretardant compositions of the invention are diluted with water andapplied on threatened vegetation, ahead of approaching wildland fire.Ammonia from both the ammonium phosphate and the ammonium sulfate areliberated at temperatures below the ignition temperature of the fuel. Asused herein ammonium sulfates include ammonium thiosulfate. Accordingly,sulfuric acids include thiosulfuric acid. The phosphoric and sulfuricacids are both initially effective fire retarding acids. The phosphoricacid will remain present and effective with the vegetative fuel untiltemperatures exceed 600° C. However, the boiling point of sulfuric acidis much lower and the amount present will decrease as fuel temperatureincreases. Thus, at least a portion of the sulfuric acid is lost priorto the ignition temperature of the fuel. The resultant mineral acidssubsequently react with the cellulosic components of vegetative fuels onwhich they are applied. Their thermal decomposition is thereby alteredin such a manner that they will no longer serve as fuel. These reactionsare described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,839,065 to Vandersall, which is herebyincorporated by reference in its entirety.

[0039] The fire retardant compositions of the invention may also containsuspending agents. Suspending agents effectively reduce the rate ofseparation and settling during long term storage. Thus, as one skilledin the art would appreciate, the amount of suspending agent depends uponits relative effectiveness per unit applied, the desired length ofstorage, and the additional additives incorporated into the compositionsof the invention. As used herein, suspending agents useful in thecompositions of the invention include colloidal clays, for example,Attapulgus, Fuller's earth, Sepiolite, Montmorillonite, and Kaolinclays. As used herein, Attapulgus clay includes, but is not limited toattapulgite and polygorskite. As used herein, Kaolin clay includes, butis not limited to Kaolinite, [Al₂Si₂O₇-2(H₂O)] and [Al₂O₃-2SiO₂-2(H₂O)].

[0040] As will be apparent to those skilled in the art, thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant of the invention may contain or bemixed with other functional components or additives such as suspendingagents, coloring agents, surfactants, stabilizers, opacifying agents,other corrosion inhibitors, any combination thereof, or, with otherfunctional components.

[0041] For example, and in one embodiment of the invention, thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant compositions of the invention includeat least one highly colored pigment. The colored pigment is incorporatedto assist in the visual identification of treated and untreatedvegetation. Suitable highly colored pigments include iron oxide, whichproduces many colors like brown and red, titanium dioxide pigments,which produce a white color, or an ultra-violet sensitive dye dispersedin biodegradable plastic. However, for certain uses, like alongroadsides or in parks, it may be desirable to exclude any colorant fromthe mixture. Accordingly, as one skilled in the art would appreciate,the amount of colorant or pigment incorporated into the compositions ofthe invention depends on the degree of the dilution and visibilitycontemplated by the user. Visibility is usually obtained with red ironoxide when it is present in the diluted solution in the range of about0.15% to about 0.4%, depending on the colorant characteristics and onthe vegetative and topographical characteristics of that on which itwill be applied. The amount that must be incorporated in the concentratewill, of course, vary with the dilution rate required to provideadequate fire retarding effectiveness.

[0042] In another embodiment, the present invention includes at leastone of red iron oxide or brown iron oxide, or a combination thereof. Inyet another embodiment, the present invention includes a fugitivecoloring agent, whose color fades upon exposure to the elements. In afurther embodiment, the present invention includes opacifying pigments,which are generally not highly colored, but have the ability to coverand hide that on which they are deposited so that a highly coloredpigment becomes more visible.

[0043] Surfactants may also be added to increase visibility, through thegeneration of a foam, and to improve penetration of the retardantsolution into porous fuels. Accordingly, as one skilled in the art wouldappreciate, the amount and type of surfactant incorporated into thecompositions of the invention depends on the degree of the dilution andvisibility contemplated by the user.

[0044] It has been discovered that azoles are effective corrosioninhibitors for brass. Accordingly, and in one embodiment of theinvention, the compositions of the invention comprise at least oneazole. As used herein, an azole is any of a group of chemical compoundswith a five-membered ring containing one or more nitrogen atoms. Azolessuitable for use in the corrosion-inhibited fire retardants of theinvention include, but are not limited to tolytriazole, benzotriazole,mercaptobenzothiazole, dimercaptothiadiazole, 1,2 benzisothiazoline-3-1,2-benzimidazolone, 4,5,6,7-tetrahydrobenzotriazole, tolylimidazole,2-(5-ethyl-2-pyridyl) benzimidazole, phthalimide, any alkali metal saltsthereof and combinations thereof. The amount of azole or other corrosioninhibitor is dependent upon the corrodible metal for which corrosionresistance is desired, the level of resistance desired, and the specificconcentration of the fire retardant composition employed, includingcorrosion inhibiting compounds contained therein.

[0045] However, in one specific embodiment of the invention, thecorrosion-inhibited fire retardant concentrates of the invention includeat least one azole, 15 present in a minor amount effective to obtain acorrosivity of yellow brass to a maximum of 5.0 mpy, as determined bythe “Uniform Corrosion Test” set forth in Section 4.5.6.1 of“Specification 5100-304b (January 2000) Superseding Specification5100-304a (February 1986),” entitled “Specification For Long TermRetardant, Wildland Fire, Aircraft or Ground Application,” issued by theUSDA. In another specific embodiment of the invention, the fireretardant concentrate of the invention comprises in the range of about0.01% to about 1.0% tolytriazole. In yet another specific embodiment,the composition of the invention includes in the range of about 0.2% toabout 0.6% tolytriazole. In yet another specific embodiment, thecomposition of the invention includes in the range of about 0.3% toabout 0.5% tolytriazole.

[0046] A method of inhibiting corrosion using the above-describedcorrosion inhibiting system of the invention is also provided. Accordingto the method of the invention, a corrodible material is provided andcontacted with an effective amount of the corrosion inhibiting system ofthe invention to substantially reduce the corrosiveness of the fireretardant.

[0047] In one embodiment, the corrodible material is selected from agroup of corrodible materials consisting of steel, brass, aluminum andany alloy thereof.

[0048] Prior to use, and in one embodiment of the invention, thecorrosion inhibited fire retardant composition of the invention andbiopolymer, if present, are blended with water prior to or duringcontact with the corrodible material. The water used in the compositionof the invention may be tap water or water from other convenient watersources.

[0049] In one embodiment, the corrosion inhibiting system includes atleast one additive selected from a group of additives includingsuspending agents, coloring agents, surfactants, opacifying pigments,stabilizers, corrosion inhibitors and any combination thereof.

[0050] While the corrosion-inhibited fire retardant compositions of theinvention reduce aluminum corrosivity in the absence of biopolymers,biopolymers do not significantly reduce the corrosion of aluminum in theabsence of the corrosion inhibiting system of the invention. However, ithas been discovered that the fire retardant compositions of theinvention that include at least one biopolymer, as described above,improve the rheological characteristics of the retardants of theinvention in the absence of the corrosion-inhibiting system.Specifically, increased viscosity is shown in dilute solutionscomprising the above-described corrosion-inhibited fire retardantcomposition containing biopolymer, in the absence of the corrosioninhibiting system of the invention. Accordingly, and in one embodiment,the fire retardant compositions of the invention comprise at least oneabove-described fire retardant composition comprised of at least oneammonium polyphosphate, and at least one above-described biopolymerhaving a weight average particle diameter less than about 100 microns.This embodiment, which does not include the above-described corrosioninhibiting system of the invention, will herein after be referred to asthe viscosity-increased fire retardant compositions of the invention.

[0051] While suspending agents may be utilized in the fire retardantcompositions of the invention, the use of suspending agents is notnecessary for the improved rheological and/or anti-corrosivecharacteristics of the compositions of the invention to be realized.

[0052] The viscosity-increased fire retardant compositions of theinvention generally comprise in the range of about 0.01% to about 5.0%biopolymer, in concentrate composition and preferably, at least about0.5% biopolymer. However, as one skilled in the art will appreciate,compositions comprising biopolymer concentrations outside of this rangeare also effective in increasing the viscosity of fire retardantcompositions.

[0053] In one specific embodiment of the invention, theviscosity-increased fire retardant compositions of the invention, inconcentrate, comprise about 1.0% biopolymer. In another specificembodiment of the invention, the fire retardant compositions, inconcentrate, comprise about 3.0% biopolymer. In yet another specificembodiment, the fire retardant compositions of the invention, inconcentrate, comprise about 0.5% biopolymer.

[0054] In one specific embodiment, the viscosity-increased fireretardant compositions of the invention include at least oneabove-described xanthan biopolymer. In another specific embodiment, theviscosity-increased fire retardant compositions of the invention includeat least one fire retardant composition comprised of at least oneammonium polyphosphate, in the range of about 0.01% to about 5.0% atleast one xanthan biopolymer having a weight average particle diameterless than about 100 microns, in concentrate, in the range of about0.00224% to about 1.12% biopolymer in diluted solution, and at least oneabove-described additive or functional component.

[0055] Thickeners, for example, hydroxypropyl guar, may optionally beincorporated into the above-described fire retardant compositions of theinvention. The existence of such thickeners in the compositions of theinvention is not necessary for anti-corrosive or improved rheologicalcharacteristics to be realized. If employed, the quantity of other gumsin the compositions of the invention will vary depending in part on thenature and concentration of the fire-retardant salts present, thepresence of impurities, and the presence of other components.Accordingly, in one embodiment of the invention, the compositions of theinvention do not contain thickeners, for example, hydroxypropyl guar. Inan alternate embodiment of the invention, the compositions of theinvention contain thickeners, for example, hydroxypropyl guar, ornon-ether derivative guars.

[0056] The viscosity-increased fire retardant compositions of theinvention are prepared in the same manner as the above-describedcorrosion-inhibited fire retardant compositions of the invention.Accordingly, and in one embodiment, the viscosity-increased fireretardant compositions of the invention are prepared by forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprising the above-described fireretardant compositions of the invention and diluting the intermediateconcentrate with water to form the increased-viscosity fire retardantcomposition of the invention. The viscosity-increased fire retardantcompositions of the invention are diluted in the same manner describedabove with reference to the corrosion-inhibited compositions of theinvention.

[0057] In a specific embodiment, the increased-viscosity fire retardantcompositions of the invention are prepared by forming an intermediateconcentrate composition comprised of at least one above-describedincreased-viscosity fire retardant composition and at least one xanthanbiopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less than about 100microns, wherein the fire retardant compositions comprise in the rangeof about 0.01% to about 5.0% xanthan biopolymer, and diluting theintermediate concentrate with water to form the increased-viscosity fireretardant composition of the invention.

[0058] Methods of suppressing wildland fires using theviscosity-increased fire retardant compositions of the invention arealso provided in accordance with the invention. In one embodiment, themethod includes the step of aerially applying to wildland vegetation afire suppressing composition comprising water and at least one retardantcomposition of the invention. In a specific embodiment, the methodincludes aerially applying to wildland vegetation a fire suppressingcomposition comprising water, at least one ammonium polyphosphatecomposition, in the range of about 0.00224% to 1.12% at least onexanthan biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less thanabout 100 microns and at least one above-described additive. In anotherspecific embodiment, the method includes aerially applying to wildlandvegetation a fire suppressing composition comprising water, at least oneammonium polyphosphate solution, in the range of about 0.00224 to about1.12% at least one xanthan biopolymer and the above-described corrosioninhibiting system of the invention.

[0059] All references and patents cited herein are hereby incorporatedby reference in their entireties for their relevant teachings.Accordingly, any reference cited herein and not specificallyincorporated by reference is, nevertheless, incorporated by reference inits entirety as if part of the present specification.

[0060] The following examples illustrate specific embodiments of theinvention without limiting the scope of the invention in any way. Ineach example employing ammnonium polyphosphate, samples of ammoniumpolyphosphate fire retardant concentrates were mechanically admixed withiron containing compounds, biopolymers, additives, and in some cases,with an azole, as indicated in each table. Any mechanical mixingtechnique that is well known in the art may be used in the presentinvention. The concentrated fire retardant solutions are diluted withwater, as indicated. The “Requirements” row illustrates the level ofaluminum 2024-T3 corrosion allowed by the USDA, Forest ServiceSpecifications 5100-304b, i.e., the maximum allowable corrosivity forproduct acceptance for use in wildland fire retardant compositions. Theresulting samples were tested for corrosivity in accordance with USDA,Forest Service Specifications 5100-304b.

EXAMPLE 1 The Aluminum Corrosivity of Neat Ammonium PolyphosphateSolution

[0061] Table 1 illustrates the corrosion characteristics of neat,unadulterated fertilizer grade 10-34-0 and 11-37-0 ammoniumpolyphosphate liquid concentrates obtained from three different sources.All of the samples are either 10-34-0 or 11-37-0, as received, with noadditions. The corrosivity of the samples were expressed in milli-inchesper year (“mpy”) of metal loss on exposed metal surface based on theconventional USDA, Forest Service Specifications for determiningcorrosivity. Both the concentrated retardant and its diluted solutionswere tested at each temperature and condition indicated.

[0062] The diluted solutions were prepared by admixing four to fivevolumes of water with one volume of the concentrated solution. Thus, thediluted solutions were in the range of between about 15% to about 20% byvolume of the concentrate.

[0063] In accordance with the Forest Service Specifications forcorrosion testing of fire retardants, a one-inch wide, four-inch long,one-eighth inch thick coupon of the aluminum was obtained from astandard source. The coupon is cleaned, dried and weighed according tostandard USDA, Forest Service Specification Protocols and suspended in aone quart, straight sided jar filled either 50% (partially) or 100%(totally) using a piece of nylon string. When suspended in a partiallyfull jar, the coupon was 50% (two-inches) immersed in the test solutionwith the other 50% extending up from the solution into the air spaceabove it. When the jar was full with approximately 800 ml of thesolution, the metal coupon was totally immersed in the solution. Thejars were then closed with a screw cap and two or three identicalcorrosion jars (cells) of each partially and totally immersed couponswere stored at 70° F. and 120° F. for ninety days. At the end of theninety day storage period, the jars were opened and the coupons wereremoved and cleaned according to the USDA, Forest ServiceSpecifications. After coupon dried it was re-weighed and its weight losswas determined by comparing its initial and final weights. Thecalculated weight loss and density of the metal coupon were used toextrapolate to mils (0.001 inches) of aluminum that would be lost duringa one-year period at the test condition, assuming that the weight losswas experienced uniformly across the coupon surface. The corrosion rateof both the partially and totally immersed coupons were calculated usingthe total surface area of the coupon. The samples at each condition werethen averaged and reported as the corrosion rate. The results are shownin Table 1. TABLE 1 Aluminum Corrosivity when tested in the indicatedconfiguration (mpy) Neat Concentrate Diluted Solution Ammonium 70° F.70° F. 120° F. 120° F. 70° F. 70° F. 120° 120° Polyphosphate Samplestotal partial total partial total partial total partial Requirements≦5.0 ≦5.0 ≦5.0 ≦5.0 ≦2.0 ≦2.0 ≦2.0 ≦2.0 Sample 1 8.7 4.3 134.3 77.8 8.46.5 24.9 5.7 Sample 2 12.4 6.6 106.6 78.5 15.2 8.4 10.1 5.6 Sample 3146.0 5.8 Sample 4 8.1 4.1 140.7 67.4 5.8 6.3 11.4 7.8 Sample 5 129.411.0 Sample 6 170.0 10.8 Sample 7 168.5 7.4 Sample 8 10.2 5.3 165.0 88.612.3 6.4 21.8 13.3 Sample 9 10.9 5.5 161.4 85.3 12.0 7.0 39.0 14.8Sample 10 130.0 21.1 Sample 11 126.2 22.8 Sample 12 4.3 109.4 11.0 6.4Sample 13 149.4 33.7 Sample 14 9.5 155.6 12.7 35.8 Sample 15 12.7 6.0201.0 96.5 12.8 7.5 35.8 19.3 Sample 16 13.1 7.1 159.0 86.7 11.2 6.542.7 21.8 Sample 17 151.5 13.3 Sample 18 136.3 29.2 Sample 19 12.0 6.3144.8 94.5 17.7 10.4 10.5 7.0 Sample 20 9.9 115.8 13.8 12.4 Sample 2115.2 176.9 12.7 35.1 Sample 22 10.9 5.5 172.6 74.8 13.1 7.2 42.9 18.3Average 10.6 5.6 147.7 83.3 12.2 7.4 22.0 12.6 Range (Lo-Hi) 4.3-15.24.1-7.1 106.6-201.0 67.4-94.5 5.8-17.7 6.3-10.4 5.8-42.9 5.6-21.8

[0064] The corrosivity of the ammonium polyphosphate solutions toaluminum 2024T-3 was relatively low when the temperature was maintainedat about 70° F. However, none of the samples of the neat ammoniumpolyphosphate solutions met the Forest Service Specifications forcorrosivity of fire retardants. In addition, the results show thatincreasing the solution temperature to 120° F. dramatically increasesthe corrosion of the aluminum coupon by the neat ammonium polyphosphatesamples, i.e., in excess of an order of magnitude.

EXAMPLE 2 The Aluminum Corrosivity of Ammonium Polyphosphate SolutionContaining Iron Oxide & Attapulgus Clay

[0065] The corrosion characteristics of neat fertilizer grade ammoniumpolyphosphate solutions containing additional amounts (<3%) of a mixtureof an iron oxide colorant and Attapulgus clay is illustrated in Table 2.Each sample was prepared by admixing neat concentrated ammoniumpolyphosphate obtained from several sources with Attapulgus clay, andeither 1.2% red iron oxide or 1.2% brown iron oxide, as indicated. Inaddition, 0.3% tolytriazole was also admixed into samples 11, 15, 16, 18and 19 and 0.5% tolytriazole was admixed into sample 20. Aliquots fromthese concentrate samples were then diluted by admixing 1.0 volume ofconcentrate with 4.25 volumes of tap water. The concentrates and theirsolutions were then tested for corrosivity and diluted in accordancewith Forest Service Specifications. The results are shown in Table 2.TABLE 2 Corrosion Rate (milli-inches per year) Neat Concentrate DilutedSolution Ammonium Type of Iron 70° F. 70° F. 120° F. 120° F. 70° F. 70°F. 120° F. 120° F. Polyphosphate Samples Oxide total partial totalpartial total partial total partial Corrosion of neat none 10.6 5.6147.7 83.3 12.2 7.4 22.0 12.6 10-34-0 Average from Table 1 Requirements≦5.0 ≦5.0 ≦5.0 ≦5.0 ≦2.0 ≦2.0 ≦2.0 ≦2.0 Sample 1 Bn Iron oxide⁽¹⁾ 1.44.4 Sample 2 Bn Iron oxide⁽¹⁾ 0.7 3.7 Sample 3 Bn Iron oxide⁽¹⁾ 1.4 2.3Sample 4 Bn Iron oxide⁽¹⁾ 6.4 10.1 Sample 5 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 4.6 3.6 7.35.0 6.7 4.4 4.0 3.6 Sample 6 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 3.5 1.9 6.7 9.0 4.3 3.92.5 3.3 Sample 7 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 2.3 4.5 Sample 8 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 3.53.8 1.7 1.6 2.8 4.3 3.5 3.6 Sample 9 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 3.0 3.1 Sample 10Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 15.3 11.7 Sample 11 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 32.1 7.1 Sample 12Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 8.3 3.8 Sample 13 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 26.3 3.9 Sample 14Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 19.7 3.8 Sample 15 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 43 0.8 Sample 16 RdIron oxide⁽²⁾ 6.7 5.3 Sample 17 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 2.3 4.2 Sample 18 RdIron oxide⁽²⁾ 1.4 8.0 2.7 2.0 Sample 19 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 5.0 3.5 8.513.7 5.7 4.2 5.4 4.1 Sample 20 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 4.4 2.4 11.2 2.8 4.1 4.02.3 2.8 Sample 21 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾ 2.0 1.9 Sample 22 Rd Iron oxide⁽²⁾7.8 11.1 Average 3.7 3.0 8.3 6.4 4.4 4.2 4.6 3.5 Range 1.4-5.0 1.9-3.80.7-32.1 1.6-13.7 2.7-5.7 3.9-4.3 2.5-11.7 2.8-4.1

[0066] The results indicate that the addition of small amounts of ironoxide and clay reduce the corrosion of totally immersed aluminum in a70° F. solution by 50% to 65%. In addition, the impact of the mixture onhigh temperature corrosion is even more dramatic than at lowtemperatures. When the corrosion cell was stored at 120° F., the rate ofaluminum corrosion decreased by about 75% to 90%. At both temperaturesthe corrosion rate on partially immersed coupons was greater than 50% ofthe totally immersed values, which indicated that significant interfaceor vapor/air phase corrosion occurs when the mixture is present in thesolution. This differs from the corrosivity of the neat ammoniumpolyphosphate solutions of Table 1. However, the addition of 1.2%insoluble iron oxide and a clay to the ammonium polyphosphate samplesdid not reduce the aluminum 2024-T3 corrosion rate of the concentratesor its solutions to within the limits required by the USDA, ForestService Specifications.

EXAMPLE 3 The Aluminum Corrosivity of Ammonium Polyphosphate SolutionsContaining a Mixture of Soluble and Insoluble Iron Compounds

[0067] The data in Tables 3a and 3b illustrate the relativeeffectiveness of a number of corrosion inhibitor systems containingwater soluble and water insoluble sources of iron, and mixtures thereof,in several sources and types of ammonium polyphosphate concentrates andtheir diluted solutions. The samples were prepared by admixing either10-34-0 or 11-37-0 type ammonium polyphosphate solutions from varioussources with varying concentrations of insoluble red iron oxide or browniron oxide additives and Attapulgus clay additives and varying theconcentrations of other iron containing additives, as indicated. Samples1, 2, 3 and 4 are 10-34-0 ammonium polyphosphate concentrates fromdifferent sources. The solutions were subjected to high shear mixing inorder to activate or hydrate the clay.

[0068] Each concentrate and its diluted solution was tested for aluminumcorrosivity in accordance with the Forest Service Specificationprotocols. The results are shown in Tables 3a and 3b. TABLE 3a Corrosion(mpy) Ammo- nium Poly- phos- Insoluble Iron Other Iron ContainingAdditive Neat Concentrate Diluted Solution phate Oxide Added Fe. Content70° F. 70° F. 120° F. 120° F. 70° F. 70° F. 120° F. 120° F. Sample %Type (%) Additive % insol. % sol Total partial total Partial totalpatial total partial 1 SAM- 0.0 None 0.0 None 0.00 0.00 9.1 5.2 140.679.5 10.8 6.9 1.6 9.4 PLE 1 (See Table 1) 2 1.2 Iron oxide 0.0 None 0.000.00 3.7 3 8.3 6.4 4.4 4.2 4.6 3.5 3 0.6 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.420.35 7.4 0.5 oxide pyrophosphate 4 0.6 Br. Iron 5.0 Sol. Ferric 0.420.58 9.0 0.6 oxide pyrophosphate 5 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 2.2 1.0 oxide pyrophosphate 6 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 2.2 1.0 oxide pyrophosphate 7 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 5.7 1.3 oxide pyrophosphate 8 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 10.9 2.5 oxide pyrophosphate 9 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 10.8 1.6 oxide pyrophosphate 10 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 10.3 1.5 oxide pyrophosphate 11 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 18.1 1.6 oxide pyrophosphate* 12 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 3.1 3.1 6.1 2.9 4.4 3.6 1.6 3.4 oxide pyrophosphate* 13 0.6 Br.Iron 0.6 Sol. Ferric 0.42 0.13 118.7 1.4 oxide citrate* 14 0.6 Br. Iron3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.42 0.66 5.5 0.6 oxide citrate 15 0.6 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol.Ferric 0.42 0.66 6.7 0.6 oxide citrate* 16 1.2 Br. Iron 1.8 Sol. Ferric0.84 0.40 0.9 0.5 oxide citrate* 17 1.2 Br. Iron 1.8 Sol. Ferric 0.840.40 15.3 3.3 oxide citrate* 18 1.2 Red Iron 1.8 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.4046.5 2.2 oxide citrate* 19 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.66 1.00.7 oxide citrate* 20 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.66 4.5 0.7oxide citrate 21 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.66 3.9 0.6 oxidecitrate 22 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.66 1.0 0.7 oxide citrate23 0.6 Br. Iron 5.0 Sol. Ferric 0.42 0.88 7.9 0.8 oxide NH4 citrate 241.2 Red Iron 1.8 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.32 53.9 3.4 oxide NH4 citrate 25 1.2Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.60 1.0 3.4 oxide sulfate.7H20 26 1.2 RedIron 1.2/3.0 Insol./sol. 1.13 0.35 7.5 1.3 oxide Ferric pyrophosphate 271.2/3.0 Insol./sol. 0.29 0.35 2.0 1.2 Ferric pyrophosphate 28 1.2/3.0Insol./sol. 0.29 0.35 2.3 0.7 Ferric pyrophosphate 29 3.0/3.0Insol./sol. 0.72 0.35 5.8 1.0 Ferric pyrophosphate 30 1.2/3.0 Insolferric 0.29 0.66 2.1 1.2 pyro/sol Fe citrate

[0069] TABLE 3b Corrosion (mpy) Ammo- nium Poly- phos- Insoluble IronOther Iron Containing Additive Neat Concentrate Diluted Solution phateOxide Added Fe. Content 70° F. 70° F. 120° F. 120° F. 70° F. 70° F. 120°F. 120° F. Sample % Type (%) Additive % insol. % sol. total partialtotal partial total partial total partial 31 SAM- 1.2/3.0 Insol ferric0.37 0.35 3.1 1.5 PLE 1 ortho/sol. Ferric pyro 32 1.2/3.0 Insol ferric0.37 0.35 2.2 1.0 ortho/sol. Ferric pyro 33 1.2/3.0 Insol/sol. 0.37 0.411.9 2.2 Ferric ortho 34 1.2/3.0 lnsol/sol. 0.37 0.41 1.9 1.5 Ferricortho 35 1.2/4.0 Insol. Fe(III) 0.37 0.70 2.3 1.4 orthophos- phate/solFe(III) NH4 citrate 36 1.2/4.0 Insol. Fe(III) 0.37 0.70 1.8 1.2orthophos- phate/sol Fe(III) NH₄ citrate 37 1.2/3.0 Insol. Fe 0.37 0.3517.0 1.9 oxalate 2H₂O/sol. Ferrie pyrophos- phate 38 1.2/3.0 Insol. Fe0.37 0.60 37.4 5.8 oxalate/sol. Fe sulfate 39 SAM- 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol.Ferric 0.84 0.35 1.2 0.9 10.1 5.2 3.7 3.7 1.4 1.7 PLE 2 oxide pyrophos-phate 40 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.66 0.2 0.4 oxide citrate 41SAM- 0.6 Br. Iron 5.0 Sol. Ferric 0.42 1.10 6.2 0.5 PLE 3 oxide citrate42 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.45 2.8 2.7 110.1 70.2 11.0 6.77.6 3.5 oxide pyrophos- phate 43 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.3533.2 7.6 oxide pyrophos- phate 44 SAM- 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.840.35 3.7 76.5 6.4 0.8 PLE 4 oxide pyrophos- phate 45 SAM- 1.2 Red Iron3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.35 2.3 2.8 2.8 1.1 PLE 5⁽²⁾ oxide pyrophos- phate46 1.2 Red Iron 4.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.46 1.8 2.8 2.6 1.8 oxidepyrophos- phate 48 2.4 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 1.68 0.35 1.4 2.1 2.71.2 oxide pyrophos- phate 49 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.35 4.02.1 oxide pyrophos- phate 50 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.35 1.61.0 2.4 1.7 2.0 3.2 1.1 2.0 oxide pyrophos- phate 51 1.2 Red Iron3.0/3.0 insol./sol 1.56 0.56 0.6 5.4 1.6 0.9 oxide Ferric pyrophos-phate 52 SAM- 1.2 Br. Iron 3.0 Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.35 2.1 1.7 113.0 52.711.8 6.2 8.1 4.5 PLE 6⁽²⁾ oxide pyrophos- phate 53 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Sol.Ferric 0.84 0.35 21.0 5.6 oxide pyrophos- phate 54 SAM- 1.2 Red Iron 3.0Sol. Ferric 0.84 0.35 4.2 83.0 3.8 1.1 PLE 7⁽²⁾ oxide pyrophos- phate

[0070] For comparative purposes, line 1 illustrates the averagecorrosion characteristics of neat concentrate and dilute solutions fromSample 1, taken from Table 1, line 2 illustrates the average aluminumcorrosion rate of the concentrate and diluted ammonium polyphosphate (asillustrated in Table 2) when the neat material was admixed with smallamounts of iron oxide pigment and Attapulgus clay. Samples 1-4 were10-34-0 type ammonium polyphosphate samples obtained from varioussources. Samples 5-7 were 11-37-0 type ammonium polyphosphate samplesobtained from various sources.

[0071] The data in Tables 1 and 2 illustrate that corrosive attack ofaluminum was most severe when exposed to the fire retardant concentrateand its solutions at elevated (120° F./49° C.) temperature in thetotally immersed configuration. Consequently, the evaluation ofcorrosion inhibiting systems stressed testing under these conditions.Periodic testing at other conditions was conducted. Lines 3 through 6illustrate the corrosion inhibiting effectiveness of variouscombinations of insoluble brown iron oxide and soluble ferricpyrophosphate. The results indicate that the USDA, Forest ServiceSpecifications for corrosivity of fire retardants are met when 1.2% ofthe brown iron oxide is used in conjunction with 3.0% of the solubleferric pyrophosphate. In addition, the results indicate that loweramounts of insoluble iron oxide result in unacceptable corrosion ratesin the concentrated retardant solution.

[0072] Lines 7 through 12 illustrate the effectiveness of corrosioninhibiting systems similar to those described in the precedingparagraph, except red iron oxide is substituted for brown iron oxide.The results indicate that the red iron oxide is effective in reducingthe aluminum corrosion of the concentrated and diluted ammoniumpolyphosphate although perhaps not quite as effective as the brown ironoxide.

[0073] Lines 13-22 illustrate the corrosion inhibiting effectiveness ofmixtures of insoluble iron oxide and soluble ferric citrate. The resultsindicate that ferric citrate is an equally effective substitute forsoluble ferric pyrophosphate. In addition, the results indicate that amixture of brown iron oxide and 3.0% soluble ferric citrate is capableof reducing the corrosivity of the ammonium polyphosphate samples towithin acceptable levels for compliance with U.S. Forest ServiceSpecifications for corrosivity of fire retardants.

[0074] Lines 23 and 24 illustrate the use of ferric ammonium citrate asa substitute for ferric citrate. The results indicate that the solubleferric compounds are as effective as ammonium citrate in reducingcorrosion of aluminum by ammonium polyphosphate solutions.

[0075] Lines 27 through 38 illustrate the effectiveness of systems inwhich only uncolored, soluble and insoluble iron containing compoundsare used rather than the relatively highly colored persistent ironoxides. This is important where true fugitive retardants are desired,whereby the color gradually fades when exposed to natural sunlight anddisappears so as not to permanently stain that on which it is applied.

[0076] Lines 26 through 38 illustrate the effectiveness of mixtures ofsoluble and insoluble ferric pyrophosphate. Acceptable aluminumcorrosion properties are obtained when 3.0% of the former and 1.2% ofthe latter are used as the corrosion inhibiting system in an ammoniumpolyphosphate solution. The results also indicate that an increasedlevel of insoluble ferric pyrophosphate does not further reduce thecorrosivity of the concentrate.

[0077] Lines 27 though 38 illustrate the aluminum corrosion inhibitingeffectiveness of mixtures of the various soluble and insoluble ironcompounds. Lines 37 and 38 revealed that, although effective, the testedferrous salts were less effective at equivalent iron addition rates ascompared to the ferric compounds.

[0078] Lines 39 through 44 illustrate the aluminum corrosion inhibitingeffectiveness of various soluble and insoluble iron compounds when usedin conjunction with 10-34-0 ammonium polyphosphate concentrates obtainedfrom alternative sources. These data indicate that the amount and ratioof corrosion inhibitor necessary to reduce corrosivity to an acceptablelevel will need to be optimized dependent on the source andcharacteristics thereof.

[0079] Lines 45 through 54 illustrate the aluminum corrosion inhibitingeffectiveness of the subject compounds when used in various sources of11-37-0 type ammonium polyphosphate concentrate and their dilutedsolutions.

EXAMPLE 4 Corrosion Characteristics of Ammonium Polyphosphate SolutionsContaining Water Soluble Iron Compounds

[0080] Example 4 illustrates the effectiveness of water-soluble ferricpyrophosphate, ferric citrate and ferrous sulfate as aluminum corrosioninhibitors in ammonium polyphosphate solutions. In each sample, theindicated soluble iron compounds and 1.4% Attapulgus clay were admixedwith neat ammonium polyphosphate. Aliquots were subsequently drawn fromthe concentrate and diluted with the prescribed amount of water. Thealuminum corrosivity of both the concentrated fire retardants and theirdiluted solutions was determined in accordance with the aforementionedForest Service Specifications. The results of this testing is shown inTable 4. TABLE 4 Ammonium Soluble Iron Added Aluminum Corrosion⁽¹⁾Polyphosphate Total Fe Dilute Samples (%) Additive (%) ConcentrateSolution Average 0 None 0 106.6-170.0 +TC,5.8-39.0 Sample from Table 1 10.6 Soluble ferric pyrophosphate 0.07 150.6 1.5 2 3.0 Soluble ferricpyrophosphate 0.35 42.5 1.6 3 3.0 Soluble ferric pyrophosphate 0.35 75.41.2 4 3.0 Soluble ferric pyrophosphate 0.35 69.3 1.3 5 2.4 Solubleferric citrate 0.53 113.1 2.5 6 3.0 Soluble ferric citrate 0.66 124.12.4 7 3.0 Soluble ferric citrate 0.66 17.0 1.1 8 3.0 Ferroussulfate^(.)7H₂O 0.60 27.9 3.1

[0081] The results indicate that both soluble ferric and ferrous ironcontaining salts show utility as aluminum corrosion inhibitors inammonium polyphosphate solutions. Relatively small concentrations(0.35%) of soluble iron derived from a soluble ferric pyrophosphatedecreased the corrosion rate of totally immersed aluminum exposed to120° F. solutions of the diluted fire retardant to within the USDAForest Service Specification requirements. The data illustrate thatsoluble iron containing compounds are most effective in controlling thecorrosivity of diluted solutions. Since the corrosivity of both theconcentrate and its diluted solutions is of importance, mixtures ofwater soluble and water insoluble iron compounds generally providesuperior performance.

EXAMPLE 5 Corrosion Characteristics of Ammonium Polyphosphate SolutionsContaining Other Water Insoluble Iron Compounds

[0082] Table 5 illustrates the effectiveness of water insoluble ferricorthophosphate, insoluble ferric pyrophosphate and ferrous oxalate asaluminum corrosion inhibitors in ammonium polyphosphate concentrates andtheir dilute solutions. 1.4% Attapulgus clay was mixed with theconcentrated ammonium polyphosphate, with the exception of samples 6 and7 which contained 0.7% and 2.8% Attapulgus clay, respectively. Samples13, 18 and 24 contained, also, an insoluble iron oxide as a solutioncolorant. The resultant fire retardant concentrates and their dilutesolutions were evaluated in terms of aluminum corrosivity in accordancewith the USDA Forest Service Specification requirements. The results ofthe testing are shown in Table 5 below. TABLE 5 Neat concentrate DilutedSolution Ammonium Iron Oxide Other Insol. Total Fe. 70° F. 70° F. 120°F. 120° F. 70° F. 70° F. 120° F. 120° F. Polyphosphate Addition FeAdditive Content Total partial total Partial total partial total partialSamples % Type (%) Additive (%) Corrosion Rate (milli-inches per year) 1Neat 10-34-0⁽¹⁾ 0.0 None 0.0 None 0.00 9.1 5.2 140.6 79.5 10.8 6.9 16.09.4 2 Sample 1 0.0 None 1.2 Ferric 0.29 2.9 1.7 pyrophosphate 3 Sample 20.0 None 2.4 Ferric 0.58 9.4 3.7 pyrophosphate 4 Sample 3 0.0 None 3.0Ferric 0.72 3.5 1.1 pyrophosphate 5 Sample 4 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.726.5 2.2 pyrophosphate 6 Sample 5 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.72 2.1 1.4pyrophosphate 7 Sample 6 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.72 3.6 2.1 pyrophosphate8 Sample 7 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.72 1.0 1.7 pyrophosphate 9 Sample 8 0.0None 2.4 Ferric 0.58 10.7 1.0 pyrophosphate 10 Sample 9 0.0 None 3.0Ferric 0.72 5.5 6.3 pyrophosphate 11 Sample 10 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.722.4 6.2 3.1 1.1 pyrophosphate 12 Sample 11 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.72 3.41.3 pyrophosphate 13 Sample 12 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.72 3.2 2.2pyrophosphate 14 Sample 13⁽²⁾ 1.2 Red Iron 0.0 None 0.84 3.7 3.0 8.3 6.44.4 4.2 4.6 3.5 oxide 15 Sample 14 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Ferric 1.56 2.0 1.34.8 3.0 1.5 3.1 0.8 2.0 oxide pyrophosphate 16 Sample 15 1.2 Red Iron3.0 Ferric 1.56 1.6 6.2 1.6 1.0 oxide pyrophosphate 17 Sample 16 1.2 RedIron 3.0 Ferric 1.56 2.5 0.7 2.5 0.6 oxide pyrophosphate 18 Sample 171.2 Red Iron 3.0 Ferric 1.56 1.9 1.2 0.5 0.2 1.1 2.4 0.8 1.9 oxidepyrophosphate 19 Sample 18 1.2 Red Iron 3.0 Ferric 1.56 2.1 2.7 1.1 0.8oxide pyrophosphate 20 Sample 19 0.0 None 1.2 Ferric 0.16 105.3 1.7orthophosphate 21 Sample 20 0.0 None 1.8 Ferric 0.55 108.6 3.8orthophosphate 22 Sample 21 0.0 None 2.4 Ferric 0.73 9.3 4.1orthophosphate 23 Sample 22 0.0 None 3.0 Ferric 0.92 2.3 4.2orthophosphate 24 Sample 23 1.2 Brown 3.0 Ferric 1.25 1.5 1.0 Iron oxideorthophosphate 25 Sample 24 0.0 None 1.2 Ferrous 0.37 90.0 2.7 oxalate

[0083] The corrosion inhibiting effectiveness of insoluble ferricpyrophosphate was shown by a comparison of the compositions containingonly this component, lines 2-13, with line 1. The effectiveness was alsoshown by comparison with 1.2% red iron oxide, line 14. These comparisonsillustrate the effectiveness of insoluble ferric pyrophosphate as analuminum corrosion inhibitor for concentrated ammonium polyphosphate andits solutions. It was shown to be superior to red iron oxide whencompared on an equal ferric iron level. Accordingly, the insolubleferric pyrophosphate would be preferred in many applications since it isnot highly colored like the conventional iron oxides, which result inhighly visible and persistent discoloration of that on which it isapplied. Consequently, inhibitor systems containing these componentswould be suitable for use in fugitive colored fire retardantformulations.

[0084] Lines 15-19 illustrate the further reduction in aluminumcorrosion, which was obtained by combining iron oxide and ferricpyrophosphate in the same corrosion inhibiting system. The resultsindicate that several of these formulations met the USDA, Forest ServiceSpecifications for corrosivity of aluminum in both the concentrate anddilute forms.

[0085] The data contained in lines 20 and 23 illustrate theeffectiveness of insoluble ferric orthophosphate in inhibiting thecorrosion of aluminum exposed to ammonium polyphosphate solutions. Theresults indicate that the pyrophosphate moiety may be somewhat superiorto orthophosphate for inhibiting the corrosion of aluminum.

[0086] The data contained in line 24 indicates that increasing theferric iron content of the corrosion inhibiting system by using mixturesof ferric orthophosphate and iron oxide is also an effective way ofmeeting the USDA, Forest Service Specifications for corrosivity ofaluminum.

[0087] Line 25 in Table 5 illustrates the aluminum corrosion inhibitingeffectiveness of small amounts of ferrous (FeII) iron when incorporatedin ammonium polyphosphate concentrates and their dilute solutions.

EXAMPLE 6 Effectiveness of Azoles as Corrosion Inhibitors In AmmoniumPolyphosphate Fire Retardant Compositions

[0088] Example 6 illustrates the effectiveness of azoles as yellow brasscorrosion inhibitors in concentrated ammonium polyphosphate based fireretardant formulations and in their dilute solutions. Each sample wasprepared by mixing 1.4% Attapulgus clay, 1.2% red iron oxide and theindicated azole corrosion inhibitor in the neat, concentrated ammoniumpolyphosphate. Subsequently, the concentrates were diluted with water inthe manner described herein. The samples were then tested in accordancewith USDA Forest Service Specification requirements. TABLE 6 THE IMPACTOF AZOLES ON THE CORROSION OF YELLOW BRASS EXPOSED TO CONCENTRATEDAMMONIUMPOLYPHOSPHATE AND ITS DILUTED SOLUTIONS.* Corrosion of exposedyellow brass (mpy) Diluted Concentrated Retardant Solution CorrosionInhibitor System 70T** 70P 120T 120P 70T 70P 120T 120P None 0.5 0.6 0.62.0 1.5 5.7 20.3 14.9 0.3% tolytriazole 0.2 0.3 0.5% tolytriazole 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.25% sodium tolyl triazole*** 0.2 0.10.255% sodium tolyl-triazole+ 0.2 0.1 0.425% sodium tolyl-triazole+ 0.20.1 0.5% sodium tolyl-triazole*** 0.1 0.2 0.5% sodium triazole++ 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.0% sodium triazole++ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

[0089] The results indicate that azoles, including both tolytriazolesand salts thereof are effective corrosion inhibitors for yellow brass inammonium polyphosphate concentrates and solutions. These data and othersincluded in previous Examples illustrate the advantages of using azolesin conjunction with the iron containing inhibitors of this invention toreduce both aluminum and brass corrosivity of the fire retardantcompositions to within desirable limits.

EXAMPLE 7 The Impact of Xanthan Biopolymer on Ammonium PolyphosphateBased Fire Retardants

[0090] Table 7 illustrates the impact of xanthan on the viscosity andaluminum corrosion of iron inhibited ammonium polyphosphate based fireretardant concentrates and their dilute solutions. In addition to thebiopolymer and iron containing corrosion inhibitor systems, mostformulations contained a suspending clay. The samples were prepared byadmixing ammonium polyphosphate solutions with various concentrations ofAttapulgus clay, tolytriazole, iron oxide, biopolymer and ferricpyrophosphate or sodium citrate as indicated. The solutions weresubjected to high shear mixing in order to activate or hydrate thevarious components, where necessary. Dilution was accomplished byadmixing five volumes of water with one volume of the concentrated fireretardant composition. All references to xanthan in Tables 7a and 7brefer to a commercial grade of xanthan, Keltrol BT®, which has anaverage particle diameter less than about 100 microns.

[0091] Each concentrate and diluted solution was tested for aluminumcorrosivity in accordance with the Forest Service Specificationprotocols and the viscosity of each concentrate and dilute solution wastested by methods of testing viscosity that are well-known in the art.The results are shown in Tables 7a and 7b. TABLE 7a USFS Formulation No.Corrosion Components (wt. %) Regm'ts A B C D E F G H I J K L AmmoniumPolyphosphate (conc.) 100.0 99.0 97.1 96.1 94.1 93.1 91.1 90.1 91.1 90.197.5 94.5 Attapulgus clay 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 tolytriazole0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Iron oxide 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.21.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Keltrol BT-xanthan gum 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Ferric pyrophosphate (insol) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.3 4.3 3.0 Ferricpyrophoshate (sol) 3.0 3.0 Sodium citrate 1.7 1.7 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ConcentrateViscosity (cps)* Initial 63 70 123 191 221 202 321 245 238 226 81 95 14days 63 70 333 318 233 196 280 290 338 378 78 98 30 days 58 63 436 477497 313 690 396 700 408 75 100 90 days 66 63 1000 1290 1310 1360 1200740 1020 1510 66 88 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy) 70T <5.0 6.7 6.3 1.1 2.60.6 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 7.2 2.0 70P <5.0 3.6 3.5 0.6 1.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.60.6 0.6 3.9 1.2 120T <5.0 110.4 105.4 5.9 4.7 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.148.4 1.5 120P <5.0 70.5 68.9 2.4 3.0 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 24.7 1.2Dilute Solution (5:1 mix ratio) Viscosity (cps)* Initial 5 163 8 163 8177 8 187 8 192 165 173 14 days 11 48 11 155 — 156 8 185 — — 229 169 30days 6 20 8 147 8 155 10 175 8 160 148 160 90 days 6 12 10 118 8 53 8113 10 107 73 103 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy) 70T <2.0 13.6 10.6 2.5 0.81.2 0.7 2.1 0.7 2.7 0.7 1.2 0.6 70P <2.0 7.8 6.2 3.4 2.5 2.1 1.6 2.0 1.62.0 1.5 2.7 4.4 120T <2.0 3.2 3.6 1.8 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.80.8 120P <2.0 5.4 4.4 3.4 2.1 2.3 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.0 1.3 1.9 2.5

[0092] TABLE 7b USFS Formulation No. Corrosion Components (wt. %)Regm'ts M N O P Q R S Ammonium Polyphosphate (conc.) 97.0 94.1 91.1 88.188.1 95.5 92.5 Attapulgus clay 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 tolytriazole 0.3 0.3 0.30.3 0.3 0.3 Iron oxide 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Keltrol BT-xanthan gum3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ferric pyrophosphate (insol) 3.0 3.0 4.3Ferric pyrophosphate (sol) 3.0 Sodium citrate 1.7 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Concentrate Viscosity (cps)* Initial 78270 278 337 311 83 108 14 days 71 216 248 298 310 88 103 30 days 81 228280 457 264 88 125 90 days 85 275 910 1010 760 80 163 Aluminum Corrosion(mpy) 70T <5.0 5.6 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.3 1.4 70P <5.0 3.3 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.63.7 1.1 120T <5.0 95.9 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.7 25.4 1.2 120P <5.0 58.9 1.3 0.50.4 0.6 12.4 0.9 Dilute Solution (5:1 mix ratio) Viscosity (cps)*Initial 1010 1090 1050 1090 1050 1050 1090 14 days 960 1040 1030 11101010 1010 1050 30 days 997 1040 1010 1090 396 1010 1040 90 days 960 9901000 1050 1040 960 1000 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy) 70T <2.0 9.5 1.5 0.80.8 0.9 1.4 0.7 70P <2.0 6.1 2.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.3 1.4 120T <2.0 2.5 0.80.7 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.6 120P <2.0 3.2 1.3 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.8 1.3

[0093] Comparison of the aluminum corrosivity of the neat ammoniumpolyphosphate solution (Column A in Table 7a) with uninhibited ammoniumpolyphosphate containing 1.0% (Column B in Table 7a) and 3.0% xanthanbiopolymer (Column M in Table 7b), when added alone, has no significantimpact on aluminum corrosivity. On the other hand, comparison of ColumnsA and C in Table 7a reveals the impact of suspended iron oxide on thealuminum corrosion of the ammonium polyphosphate solution. Although theimpact of the suspended iron oxide is noteworthy, it is inadequate toreduce the aluminum corrosivity of the composition to within USDA ForestService requirements.

[0094] Comparison of samples C and D reveals that the addition of 1.0%xanthan to ammonium polyphosphate compositions containing clay,tolytriazole and iron oxide further reduces the aluminum corrosivity ofthe concentrated fire retardant to within the U.S. Forest Servicerequirements, but the diluted solutions, while reduced somewhat, arestill marginally unacceptable.

[0095] With reference to samples E, G and I, results indicate that theaddition of 3.0% insoluble ferric pyrophosphate, 3.0% each of solubleand insoluble ferric pyrophosphate or a mixture of 4.3% insoluble ferricpyrophosphate and 1.7% sodium citrate to ammonium polyphosphate basedfire retardants reduces the aluminum corrosivity of the concentratedammonium polyphosphate fire retardants. However, diluted ammoniumpolyphosphate retardants containing the same iron additives were notsignificantly improved.

[0096] With reference to samples F, H and J, the addition of 1.0%xanthan to the compositions of samples E, G and I, reduces the aluminumcorrosivity of the resultant concentrate and dilute solutions to withinthe U.S. Forest Service requirements in all testing conditions andsituations.

[0097] The results also indicate that neat ammonium polyphosphateconcentrate type fire retardants, sample A, exhibit a viscosity of about65 cps, while its dilute solution has a viscosity of 5-10 cps. Theaddition of 1.0% xanthan biopolymer to the 11-37-0 ammoniumpolyphosphate sample, in concentrate, had no significant effect onviscosity.

[0098] The results indicate, with reference to samples M through S, theimpact of increasing the concentration of xanthan biopolymer from 1.0%to 3.0% in the liquid fire retardant concentration. The data show thatthe addition of 1.0% biopolymer to an iron containing ammoniumpolyphosphate composition results in a further reduction in aluminumcorrosivity. However, increased concentrations of xanthan biopolymer donot appear to be more effective. 1.0% xanthan biopolymer is sufficientto decrease the aluminum corrosion of formulations containing 3.0%ferric pyrophosphate to within Forest Service Specifications. However,additional xanthan biopolymer increases the viscosity of the dilutedsolution to within Forest Service Specifications for a high viscosityfire retardant solution but does not further reduce corrosion.

[0099] With reference to sample M, the results indicate that 3.0%xanthan biopolymer may have a slight impact on both the viscosity andaluminum corrosivity of concentrated ammonium polyphosphate type fireretardant compositions. The diluted concentrate exhibits a stableviscosity in the range of 1000 cps, however, its aluminum corrosivity isonly slightly reduced. Accordingly, the biopolymer is reducing thealuminum corrosion by some other mechanism other than through viscositymodification. Accordingly, the biopolymer is enhancing the corrosiveinhibition of the biopolymer/iron component system by use of a mechanismother than through viscosity modification.

[0100] Samples K and R further indicate that the addition of 1%biopolymer to ammonium polyphosphate type fire retardant concentrateshas no significant impact on the viscosity of the concentrated product,but does reduce the high temperature aluminum corrosion of theconcentrated composition by 50%. In addition, the results indicate thatthe addition of 3% biopolymer to the same reduces the high temperaturealuminum corrosion of the concentrated composition by about 75% withoutsignificantly impacting the viscosity of the concentrate.

[0101] With reference to samples L and S, the results indicate thatForest Service aluminum corrosion requirements can be met informulations that do not include a suspending agent, such as Attapulgusclay.

[0102] With reference to samples H and P, the addition of soluble ferricpyrophosphate to formulations containing insoluble ferric polyphosphateand xanthan biopolymers does not further improve aluminum corrosivity.

EXAMPLE 8 The Impact of Xanthan Biopolymers with Varying Particle Sizingon the Viscosity of Liquid Concentrate Fire Retardants

[0103] Table 8 illustrates the impact of xanthan biopolymers of variousweight average particle diameters on the Theological properties ofammonium polyphosphate fire retardant concentrates. The samples wereprepared by admixing ammonium polyphosphate type fire retardantsolutions with 3.0% of the xanthan biopolymers of various weight averageparticle diameters, as indicated in Table 8. Dilution was accomplishedby admixing five volumes of water with one volume of the concentratedfire retardant.

[0104] The viscosity of each dilute solution was tested by methods oftesting viscosity that are well-known in the art. The rapid viscosityincrease upon dilution (Diluted Viscosity—10 minutes) was tested. Thestable viscosity upon dilution (Diluted Viscosity—30 days) was tested.The rapid viscosity increase of the solution after one-year (After 1Year (cps)) was tested. The stable viscosity of the solution afterone-year (After 1 Year (cps)) was tested. The results are shown below inTable 8. TABLE 8 PROPERTIES OF LIQUID CONCENTRATE FIRE RETARDANTSTHICKENED WITH XANTHAN BIOPOLYMER WITH VARYING PARTICLE SIZING WT. AfterAve. Diluted Viscosity Hydra- 1 Year ()cps) Xanthan Dia 10 tion 10Biopolymer (:) Minutes 30 Days Rate** Minutes 30 Days Rhodigel SM ® 311433 1447 99 −40 −40 Jungbunzlauer 38 1493 1543 98 +10 −53 ST ® KeltrolBT ® 70 1147 1197 96 +126 +6 ADM ® 40 98 1070 1690 63 +337 +30 mesh ADM˜105 250 1537 16 +897 +80 dispersible Kelzan ® 110 433 547 79 NA NA(uncoated) Kelzan S ® 150 120 463 26 — — (coated)

[0105] The results indicate that liquid concentrate fire retardantcompositions comprising biopolymers having particle diameters in therange of about 31 to 70 microns exhibit ideal Theological properties.However, fire retardant concentrates comprised of biopolymers havingweight average particle diameters larger than about 100 microns do notexhibit desirable Theological properties.

EXAMPLE 9 The Impact of Particle Sizing on the Viscosity of Biopolymersin Ammonium Polyphosphate Type Fire Retardants

[0106] Table 9 illustrates the particle sizing and performance ofseveral xanthan-type biopolymers in comparison with standardhydroxypropyl guar gum in liquid fire retardant concentrates. Thesamples were prepared by admixing 3.0% xanthan type biopolymer or guargum, as indicated below in Table 9, with concentrated ammoniumpolyphosphate type fire retardants. Dilution was accomplished byadmixing about five volumes of water with one volume of each dilute fireretardant composition.

[0107] The viscosity of each sample ammonium polyphosphate solution wastested by the methods described in Example 8. The results are shown inTable 9 below. TABLE 9 IMPACT OF PARTICLE SIZING ON THE PEFORMANCE OFXANTHAN BIOPOLYMERS IN AMMONIUM POLYPHOSPHATE TYPE FIRE RETARDANTS SieveSieve Opening Guar Gum Kelzan ® Kelzan S ® Rhodagel ADM JungbunzlauerSize (microns) (for comparison Keltrol BT ® (uncoated) Glyoxal coated SM ® 40 mesh Dispersible FST ® 60 250 0.0 9.0 22.0 0.0 2.6 4.0 0.0 80 1770.6 19.3 41.2 0.0 17.4 15.1 0.0 120 125 18.9 42.9 58.3 0.0 37.7 36.2 0.0230 63 56.1 77.2 79.1 2.2 68.9 75.7 2.2 270 53 65.1 83.2 83.4 5.5 76.384.2 15.6 325 44 71.1 86.9 86.3 14.7 81.5 88.9 35.8 400 38 76.5 89.988.6 28.2 85.8 91.9 50.1 <400 <38 23.6 10.1 11.4 71.8 14.3 8.1 49.9Particle Diameter (μ) >100 70 110 150 31 98 ˜105 38 weight average)Diluted Solution Viscosity (cps) Fresh Concentrate 10 minutes 1597 1147433 120 1433 1070 250 1493 30 days 63 1197 547 463 1447 1690 1537 1543One-Year Old Concentrate 10 minutes ˜10 1283 NA 310* 1393 1407 1147 150330 days ˜10 1200 NA 697* 1407 1720 1617 1490

[0108] The results indicate that fire retardant concentrates comprisingxanthan-type biopolymers in the range of about 31 to about 70 microns indiameter exhibit ideal Theological properties. However, fire retardantconcentrates comprised of biopolymers having particle diameters largerthan about 100 microns do not exhibit desirable rheological properties.Fire retardant concentrates comprising guar gum having a weight averageparticle diameter greater than about 100 microns also fails to exhibitdesirable rheological properties. Specifically, ammonium polyphosphatetype fire retardant concentrates containing guar gum have highlyunstable rheological characteristics, which make their use undesirable.Accordingly, in one embodiment the compositions of the invention do notcontain guar gum.

EXAMPLE 10 The Impact of Particle Sizing and Biopolymer Type on theViscosity of Biopolymers in Ammonium Polyphosphate Solutions

[0109] Table 10 illustrates the particle sizing and performance ofxanthan-type biopolymers with welan and rhamsan biopolymers in ammoniumpolyphosphate type liquid fire retardants. The samples were prepared byadmixing about 91.1% ammonium polyphosphate solution, 1.2% attapulgusclay, 0.3% tolytriazole, 3.0% insoluble ferric pyrophosphate and 3.0% ofthe biopolymer indicated in Tables 10a and 10b. The biopolymers usedincluded Kelzan®, Kelzan S®, Keltrol BT®, Kelcorete® and a rhamsanbiopolymer all commercially available from CP Kelco, Wilmington, Del.Kelzan® is an uncoated, conventional xanthan biopolymer, while Kelzan Sois a conventional xanthan biopolymer with an applied surface coating.Keltrol BT® is a xanthan biopolymer having a particle diameter less thanabout 100 microns. Kelcocrete is a welan type biopolymer. The viscosityof each concentrate was measured by methods described in Example 8.Then, each sample was diluted with water at a mix ratio of 5 volumes ofwater per volume of concentrate. The 10-minute and 18-hour viscosity ofthe diluted sample was measured and the samples were stored in alaboratory at a temperature of about 70°-74° F. for varying periods oftime, re-diluted and viscosity measured. The viscosity of each samplewas measured at 10 minutes, 1 hour, 24 hours, 7 days, 15 days, 21 daysand 28 days after preparation of the concentrated fire retardant. Theresults are shown in Tables 10a and 10b below. TABLE 10a IMPACT OFPARTICLE SIZING AND BIOPOLYMER TYPE ON THE VISCOSITY OF AMMONIUMPOLYPHOSPHATE TYPE FIRE RETARDANTS Biopolymer Kelzan ® Kelzan S ®Keltrol BT ® Kelcocrete ® rhamsan Concentrate Viscosity 196 198 189 195199 (CPS) Initial Dilution (CPS) 10 min. 433 140 1100 630 570 18. hrs.430 170 1060 1100 760 24 hrs. after Dilution Time after 10 min. 563 1731093 543 500 preparation 18 hrs. 557 203 1093 1027 800 7 Days afterDilution 10 min. 550 98 1040 576 507 60 min. 555 150 1057 700 620 24hrs. 590 187 1057 1043 840

[0110] TABLE 10b IMPACT OF PARTICLE SIZING AND BIOPOLYMER TYPE ON THEVISCOSITY OF AMMONIUM POLPHOSPHATE TYPE FIRE RETARDANTS BiopolymerKelzan ® Kelzan S ® Keltrol BT ® Kelcocrete ® rhamsan ConcentrateViscosity 196 198 189 195 199 (CPS) 15 Days after Dilution 10 min. 490160 1047 440 467 60 min. 503 177 1077 617 550 24 hrs. 540 217 1103 1010823 21 Days after Dilution 10 min. 710 243 1083 410 550 60 min. 747 2471107 570 663 24 hrs. 687 397 1043 937 837 28 Days after Dilution 10 min.547 200 1043 937 837 60 min. 563 237 1063 650 710 24 hrs. 613 260 10571047 903

[0111] The results indicate that welan and rhamsan type biopolymersthicken more slowly than xanthan type biopolymers but are effective atincreasing the viscosity of ammonium polyphosphate type fire retardantsolutions. Xanthan type biopolymers having a particle diameter of lessthan about 100 microns, however, rapidly increase the viscosity ofammonium polyphosphate type fire retardants upon dilution. Conventionalbiopolymers, e.g. xanthan type biopolymers having particle diametersgreater than about 100 microns, fail to develop the viscosity of thefire retardants in a timely manner. Accordingly, both coated anduncoated conventional biopolymers are unsuitable for use in thickeningammonium polyphosphate type fire retardants. In addition, the long-termdata, i.e. measured viscosity 7, 15, 21 and 28 days after dilution,indicate that there is no particular change in the performance of thevarious biopolymers during storage in ammonium polyphosphate based fireretardants.

EXAMPLE 11 Impact of Use Levels of Biopolymers and Iron Additives on theViscosity of Ammonium Polyphosphate Solutions

[0112] The optimal use levels of mixtures of biopolymer and insolubleferric pyrophosphate and insoluble ferric pyrophosphate when used toreduce the aluminum corrosion level of liquid ammonium polyphosphatetype fire retardants and their dilute solutions. Formulations wereprepared by admixing a fertilizer grade ammonium polyphosphate type fireretardants with Attapulgus clay, tolytriazole, and in some cases, ironoxide. Biopolymers having average particle diameters of less than 100microns and insoluble ferric pyrophosphate were added as indicated. Eachformulation was prepared by admixing the dry components separately tothe ammonium polyphosphate, while high shear mixing at approximately1000 rpm for about 2 hours. High shear was used to hydrate the clay anddisperse the insoluble components. Dilute solutions were prepared byadmixing 1 part concentrate with 5 parts tap water. The concentrateformulations and their dilute solutions were tested in accordance withall four of the test conditions prescribed by the U.S. Forest ServiceSpecifications, described herein. The results are shown below in Tables11a, 11b and 11c. TABLE 11A Formulation Components (wt. %) A B C D E F GH I J K L M N O Ammonium Polyphosphate 100.0 93.10 96.80 95.80 94.8096.55 95.55 94.55 96.30 95.30 94.30 96.50 95.50 96.25 95.25 Attapulgusclay — 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.401.40 Tolyltriazole — 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.300.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Iron Oxide (Red) — 1.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — —Iron Oxide (Brown) — — — — — — — — — — — 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Keltrol BT— 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75Ferric Pyrophosphate (Insol.) — 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.002.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00Concentrate Viscosity (cps)* Initial 61 193 148 161 157 150 145 160 150166 167 168 156 161 173 14 days 57 421 363 173 218 365 256 198 193 208187 210 168 175 220 30 days 70 430 390 205 230 390 433 285 273 325 373305 418 308 345 90 days 61 1850 1940 750 1150 1010 1360 1310 1010 8601390 900 1430 1000 1050 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy)  70T ≦5.0 4.8 0.4 3.60.9 0.6 3.8 1.0 0.6 3.6 1.3 0.9 2.9 1.2 2.7 1.0  70P ≦5.0 2.6 0.5 1.70.6 0.5 2.0 0.8 0.5 1.9 0.9 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.4 0.7 120T ≦5.0 112.4 0.7 18.91.2 1.0 15.2 1.1 0.9 11.9 1.5 1.1 7.1 1.2 5.3 0.9 120P ≦5.0 69.4 0.543.9 0.8 0.6 16.2 0.9 0.6 46.4 0.9 0.8 3.7 0.7 2.8 0.5 Dilute solution(5:1 mix ratio) Viscosity (cps)* Initial 5 146 50 50 53 105 98 100 153172 159 53 52 109 103 14 days 5 130 30 43 40 85 78 85 138 155 143 50 4591 97 30 days 5 132 31 37 33 90 80 84 125 145 126 33 61 73 79 90 days 590 18 13 19 23 43 23 28 70 40 15 15 23 29 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy)  70T≦2.0 11.3 0.7 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.0  70P≦2.0 6.8 1.9 3.9 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.3 2.9 3.6 2.9 2.4 3.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 120T≦2.0 5.1 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.5 120P≦2.0 5.8 1.5 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.9 2.6 2.1 2.0

[0113] TABLE 11b Formulation Components (wt. %) C F I L N D G J M O B EH K Ammonium Polyphosphate 96.80 96.55 96.30 96.50 96.25 95.80 95.5595.30 95.50 92.25 93.1 94.80 94.55 94.30 Attapulgus clay 1.40 1.40 1.401.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.4 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tolyltriazole 0.300.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 0.30 0.30 0.30 IronOxide (Red) — — — — — — — — — — 1.2 — — — Iron Oxide (Brown) — — — 0.300.30 — — — 0.30 0.30 — — — — Keltrol BT 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.75 0.500.75 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 0.50 0.75 1.00 Ferric Pyrophosphate (Insol.)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 Concentrate Viscosity (cps)* Initial 148 150 150 168 161 161145 166 156 173 193 157 160 167 14 days 363 365 193 210 175 173 256 208168 220 421 218 198 187 30 days 390 390 273 305 308 205 433 325 418 345430 230 285 373 90 days 1940 1010 1010 900 1000 750 1360 860 1430 10501850 1150 1310 1390 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy)  70T ≦5.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 2.92.7 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9  70P ≦5.0 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.40.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 120T ≦5.0 18.9 15.2 11.9 7.1 5.3 1.21.1 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.1 120P ≦5.0 43.9 16.2 46.4 3.7 2.8 0.8 0.90.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 Dilute solution (5:1 mix ratio) Viscosity(cps)* Initial 50 105 153 53 109 50 98 17 52 103 146 53 100 159 14 days30 85 138 50 91 43 78 15 45 97 130 40 85 143 30 days 31 90 125 33 73 3780 14 61 79 132 33 84 126 90 days 18 23 28 15 23 13 43 70 15 29 90 19 2340 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy)  70T ≦2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.1 0.81.3 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.8  70P ≦2.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.12.8 1.9 3.0 2.9 2.4 120T ≦2.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.3 0.50.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 120P ≦2.0 1.7 1.8 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.7 2.6 2.0 1.52.2 1.6 1.2

[0114] TABLE 11c Formulation Components (wt. %) C D E L M F G H N O B IJ K Ammonium Polyphosphate 96.80 95.80 94.80 96.50 95.50 96.55 95.5594.55 96.25 95.25 93.1 96.30 95.30 94.30 Attapulgus clay 1.40 1.40 1.401.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.4 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tolyltriazole 0.300.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.3 0.30 0.30 0.30 IronOxide (Red) — — — — — — — — — — 1.2 — — — Iron Oxide (Brown) — — — 0.300.30 — — 0.30 0.30 — — — — Keltrol BT 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.750.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ferric Pyrophosphate (Insol.) 1.002.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0 Concentrate Viscosity (cps)* Initial 148 161 157 168 156 150 145160 161 173 193 150 166 167 14 days 363 173 218 210 168 365 256 198 175220 421 193 208 187 30 days 390 205 230 305 418 390 433 285 308 345 430273 325 373 90 days 1940 750 1150 900 1430 1010 1360 1310 1000 1050 18501010 860 1390 Aluminum Corrosion (mpy)  70T ≦5.0 3.6 0.9 0.6 2.9 1.2 3.81.0 0.6 2.7 1.0 0.4 3.6 1.3 0.9  70P ≦5.0 1.7 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.7 2.0 0.80.5 1.4 0.7 0.5 1.9 0.9 0.7 120T ≦5.0 18.9 1.2 1.0 7.1 1.2 15.2 1.1 0.95.3 0.9 0.7 11.9 1.5 1.1 120P ≦5.0 43.9 0.8 0.6 3.7 0.7 16.2 0.9 0.6 2.80.5 0.5 46.4 0.9 0.8 Dilute solution (5:1 mix ratio) Viscosity (cps)*Initial 50 50 53 53 52 105 98 100 109 103 146 153 172 159 14 days 30 4340 50 45 85 78 85 91 97 130 138 155 143 30 days 31 37 33 33 61 90 80 8473 79 132 125 145 126 90 days 18 13 19 15 15 23 43 23 23 29 90 28 70 40Aluminum Corrosion (mpy)  70T ≦2.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.1 0.8 1.51.0 0.7 1.2 0.8 0.8  70P ≦2.0 3.9 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.3 2.9 .3. 2.81.9 3.6 2.9 2.4 120T ≦2.0 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.80.7 0.5 0.7 120P ≦2.0 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.6 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.1 2.0 1.5 2.41.7 1.2

[0115] The results indicate that the incorporation of some iron oxidewithin the fire retardant compositions of the invention, or increasedconcentrations of other iron containing inhibitors will be necessary tomeet U.S. Forest Service requirements. Fire retardant concentrates thatinclude 1.2% iron oxide, 3% ferric pyrophosphate and 1% biopolymer, andtheir diluted solutions, meet the U.S. Forest Service Specificationrequirements. The viscosity of the fire retardant concentratescontaining 1% biopolymer gradually increased from about 150 to 200 cpsimmediately after manufacture to 1000 to 2000 cps. After three months ofstorage at 90° F., and upon dilution, the solution viscosity was in therange of 100 to 200 cps.

[0116] In view of the above, it is seen that the various objects andfeatures of the invention are achieved and other advantages and resultsare obtained. Variations and modification may be made to the varioussteps and compositions of the invention without departing from the scopeof the invention.

We claim:
 1. A fire retardant composition comprising: at least one fireretardant comprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate and at leastone biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less than about100 microns.
 2. The composition of claim 1 further comprising at leastone additive selected from a group of additives consisting of suspendingagents, coloring agents, surfactants, stabilizers, corrosion inhibitors,opacifying pigments and any combination thereof.
 3. The composition ofclaim 2 wherein said coloring agent is at least one coloring agentselected from a group of coloring agents consisting of fugitive coloringagents, non-fugitive coloring agents and opacifying pigments.
 4. Thecomposition of claim 2 wherein said suspending agent is at least onesuspending agent selected from a group consisting of Attapulgus,Sepiolite, Fuller's earth, Montmorillonite and Kaolin clays.
 5. Thecomposition of claim 1 further comprising additional water.
 6. Thecomposition of claim 5 wherein said composition comprises in the rangeof about 0.00224% to about 1.12% said biopolymer.
 7. The composition ofclaim 5 wherein said composition comprises about 0.112% said biopolymer.8. The composition of claim 5 wherein said composition comprises atleast 0.112% said biopolymer.
 9. The composition of claim 5 wherein saidcomposition comprises about 0.224% said biopolymer.
 10. The compositionof claim 5 wherein said composition comprises about 0.672% saidbiopolymer.
 11. The composition of claim 1 comprising in the range ofabout 0.01% to about 5.0% said biopolymer.
 12. The composition of claim1 comprising about 1.0% said biopolymer.
 13. The composition of claim 1comprising about 3.0% said biopolymer.
 14. The composition of claim 1comprising at least 0.5% said biopolymer.
 15. The composition of claim 1comprising about 0.5% said biopolymer.
 16. The composition of claim 1wherein said biopolymer is at least one biopolymer selected from a groupof biopolymers consisting of rhamsan, xanthan and welan biopolymers. 17.The composition of claim 1 wherein said biopolymer is at least onexanthan biopolymer.
 18. The composition of claim 1 comprising nohydroxypropyl guar gum.
 19. A fire retardant composition comprising: atleast one fire retardant comprised of at least one ammoniumpolyphosphate; in the range of about 0.01% to about 5.0% at least onexanthan biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less thanabout 100 microns; and at least one additive selected from a group ofadditives consisting of coloring agents, surfactants, stabilizers,corrosion inhibitors, opacifying pigments and any combination thereof.20. A fire retardant composition comprising: at least one fire retardantcomprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate; water; in the range ofabout 0.00224% to about 1.12% of at least one xanthan biopolymer havinga weight average particle diameter less than about 100 microns; and atleast one additive selected from a group of additives consisting ofcoloring agents, surfactants, stabilizers, corrosion inhibitors,opacifying pigments and any combination thereof.
 21. A method ofpreparing a fire retardant composition, adapted for aerial applicationto wildland fires, the method comprising the steps of: (a) forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprising: (i) a fire retardantcomprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate; and (ii) at least onebiopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less than about 100microns; and (b) diluting said intermediate concentrate with water toform said fire retardant composition.
 22. The method of claim 21 whereinsaid step of forming an intermediate concentrate composition comprisesforming an intermediate concentrate composition comprising: (i) a fireretardant comprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate; (ii) atleast one biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less thanabout 100 microns; and (iii) at least one additive selected from a groupof additives consisting of coloring agents, suspending agents,surfactants, stabilizers, corrosion inhibitors and any combinationthereof.
 23. The method of claim 22 wherein said step of forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprises forming an intermediateconcentrate composition comprising: (i) a fire retardant comprised of atleast one ammonium polyphosphate; (ii) at least one biopolymer having aweight average particle diameter less than about 100 microns; and (iii)a coloring agent selected from a group consisting of fugitive coloringagents, non-fugitive coloring agents, opacifying pigments and anycombination thereof.
 24. The method of claim 22 wherein said step offorming an intermediate concentrate composition comprises forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprising: (i) a fire retardantcomprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate; (ii) at least onebiopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less than about 100microns; and (iii) at least one suspending agent selected from a groupconsisting of Attapulgus, Sepiolite, Fuller's earth, Montmorillonite andKaolin clays.
 25. The method of claim 21 wherein said step of forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprises forming an intermediateconcentrate composition comprising in the range of about 0.01% to about5.0% said biopolymer.
 26. The method of claim 21 wherein said step offorming an intermediate concentrate composition comprises forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprising about 3.0% saidbiopolymer.
 27. The method of claim 21 wherein said step of forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprises forming an intermediateconcentrate composition comprising about 1.0% said biopolymer.
 28. Themethod of claim 21 wherein said step of forming an intermediateconcentrate composition comprises forming an intermediate concentratecomposition comprising about 0.5% said biopolymer.
 29. The method ofclaim 21 wherein said step of forming an intermediate concentratecomposition comprises forming an intermediate concentrate compositioncomprising: (i) a fire retardant comprised of at least one ammoniumpolyphosphate; and (ii) at least one biopolymer having a weight averageparticle diameter less than about 100 microns, wherein said biopolymeris at least one selected from a group consisting of xanthan, welan andrhamsan biopolymers.
 30. The method of claim 21 wherein said step offorming an intermediate concentrate composition comprises forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprising: (i) a fire retardantcomprised of at least one ammonium polyphosphate; and (ii) at least onexanthan biopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less thanabout 100 microns.
 31. The method of claim 21 wherein said step ofdiluting said intermediate concentrate with water to form said fireretardant composition comprises diluting said intermediate concentratewith water such that said fire retardant composition comprises in therange of about 0.00224% to about 1.12% said biopolymer after saiddilution step.
 32. The method of claim 21 wherein said step of dilutingsaid intermediate concentrate with water to form said fire retardantcomposition comprises diluting said intermediate concentrate with watersuch that said fire retardant composition comprises at least about0.112% said biopolymer after said dilution step.
 33. The method of claim21 wherein said step of diluting said intermediate concentrate withwater to form said fire retardant composition comprises diluting saidintermediate concentrate with water such that said fire retardantcomposition comprises about 0.112% said biopolymer after said dilutionstep.
 34. The method of claim 21 wherein said step of diluting saidintermediate concentrate with water to form said fire retardantcomposition comprises diluting said intermediate concentrate with watersuch that said fire retardant composition comprises at least about0.672% said biopolymer after said dilution step.
 35. The method of claim21 wherein said step of diluting said intermediate concentrate withwater to form said fire retardant composition comprises diluting saidintermediate concentrate with water such that said fire retardantcomposition comprises at least about 0.224% said biopolymer after saiddilution step.
 36. The method of claim 21 wherein said step of formingan intermediate concentrate composition comprises forming anintermediate concentrate composition comprising at least about 0.5% saidbiopolymer.
 37. A method of preparing a fire retardant composition,adapted for aerial application to wildland fires, the method comprisingthe steps of: (a) forming an intermediate concentrate compositioncomprising: (i) a fire retardant comprised of at least one ammoniumpolyphosphate; and (ii) a xanthan biopolymer having a weight averageparticle diameter of less than about 100 microns; wherein saidintermediate concentrate composition comprises in the range of about0.01% to about 5.0% said xanthan biopolymer; and (b) diluting saidintermediate concentrate with water to form said fire retardantcomposition.
 38. A method of suppressing wildland fires comprisingaerially applying to wildland vegetation a fire suppressing compositioncomprising: water; and a fire retardant composition comprising: at leastone ammonium polyphosphate; and at least one biopolymer having a weightaverage particle diameter of less than about 100 microns.
 39. The methodof claim 38 wherein said fire retardant compositions further comprisesat least one additive selected from a group consisting of coloringagents, suspending agents, surfactants, stabilizers, corrosioninhibitors and any combination thereof.
 40. The method of claim 39wherein said fire retardant composition further comprises at least onecoloring agent selected from a group consisting of fugitive coloringagents, non-fugitive coloring agents, opacifying pigments and anycombination thereof.
 41. The method of claim 39 wherein said fireretardant composition further comprises at least one suspending agentselected from a group of suspending agents consisting of Attapulgus,Sepiolite, Fuller's earth, Montmorillonite and Kaolin clays.
 42. Themethod of claim 39 wherein said step of aerially applying to wildlandvegetation a fire suppressing composition comprises aerially applying towildland vegetation said fire suppressing composition, wherein said firesuppressing composition comprises in the range of about 0.00224% toabout 1.12% said biopolymer.
 43. The method of claim 39 wherein saidstep of aerially applying to wildland vegetation a fire suppressingcomposition comprises aerially applying to wildland vegetation said firesuppressing composition, wherein said fire suppressing compositioncomprises about 0.672% said biopolymer.
 44. The method of claim 39wherein said step of aerially applying to wildland vegetation a firesuppressing composition comprises aerially applying to wildlandvegetation said fire suppressing composition, wherein said firesuppressing composition comprises about 0.112% said biopolymer.
 45. Themethod of claim 39 wherein said step of aerially applying to wildlandvegetation a fire suppressing composition comprises aerially applying towildland vegetation said fire suppressing composition, wherein said firesuppressing composition comprises at least about 0.112% said biopolymer.46. The method of claim 39 wherein said step of aerially applying towildland vegetation a fire suppressing composition comprises aeriallyapplying to wildland vegetation said fire suppressing composition,wherein said fire suppressing composition comprises about 0.224% saidbiopolymer.
 47. The method of claim 38 wherein said step of aeriallyapplying to wildland vegetation a fire suppressing composition comprisesaerially applying to wildland vegetation said fire suppressingcomposition, wherein said fire suppressing composition comprises atleast one biopolymer selected from a group consisting of xanthan, welanand rhamsan biopolymers.
 48. The method of claim 38 wherein said step ofaerially applying to wildland vegetation a fire suppressing compositioncomprises aerially applying to wildland vegetation said fire suppressingcomposition, wherein said fire suppressing composition comprises atleast one xanthan biopolymer.
 49. A method of suppressing wildland firescomprising aerially applying to wildland vegetation a fire suppressingcomposition comprising: water; at least one ammonium polyphosphate; inthe range of about 0.00224% to about 1.12% at least one xanthanbiopolymer having a weight average particle diameter less than about 100microns; and at least one additive selected from a group of additivesconsisting of coloring agents, surfactants, stabilizers, suspendingagents, corrosion inhibitors and any combination thereof.